The comments posted on this message board represent the individual opinions of their respective posters only and are not to be construed as statements of proven or alleged fact.
Although I understand the emotional reasoning behind the “throw the bums out” concept, I've never been a big fan of term limits because they artificially restrain the choices I have of who I can vote for. I don't like anybody — including “the system” — telling me that I can't vote for someone.
If I think someone has been in office too long, I'll vote for someone else, thank you very much.
Beyond that, Glen Ellyn has little if any institutional memory. We keep doing the same studies and making the same stupid mistakes over and over again. We need a few people who can point out that “we tried that twelve years ago, and found it doesn't work because...”
Go gettem, Pete. You'll also have my vote for Mayor, too, if we ever grow up and realize we're a city.
Posts: 1342 | Location: Glen Ellyn, IL USA | Registered: March 21, 2003
We saw Pete when we were driving through town the other day and one of my kids said, "If you don't like Mr. Ladesic, then there's something wrong with you. He is a really nice guy."
He is a big fan of Pete's and will also be eligible to vote this time around.
One could argue that Republicans pushed term limits because they were just terrified that Roosevelt would be elected again (so much for 'the will of the people'); however, funny that when Reagan was in, a lot of Republicans thought that term limits at that level should be removed.
Personally, I dislike term limits - I can vote to remove someone (like Popejoy, for example) just fine all by myself.
BTW, how would term limits actually solve the issue Ackerman raises? What's so innately wonderful about term limits? I can actually see a return to the days of true boss-ism with a revolving cast of puppet candidates, who don't ever end up learning enough during their term to accrue, or use, any decent amount of insight, or power, put up by the nefarious insiders.
On the other hand, even at the local board level, you see people spending a lot of time knocking current office holders, but somehow never running themselves, even though they seem to have a lot of enthusiasm and knowledge about a particular area. Kind of defeats the purpose of term limits, if you don't have a lot of qualified people actually putting themselves out there to serve the community, doesn't it?
Posts: 441 | Location: Glen Ellyn, IL USA | Registered: October 06, 2003
I happen to know a couple of people who had never met Ladesic until a bad storm a few years ago knocked out power for a couple of days. They saw him going around offering his own generators and pumps to those in need. If term limits keep people like that from serving then term limits are very bad and we have to take the bad with the good. He'll have my vote until he decides he's not going to run anymore. I wish we had more like him.
Most state Legislators work part-time though they make full time salaries. Most have outside jobs or businesses. Surprisingly enough some have ties with state or local government.
Mike Madigan's law firm does a lucrative business getting well connected ( you have to be well connected to be a client of Mr. Madigan ) clients breaks on their real estate taxes.
Who says Democrats are against lower taxes.
So my guess is that the permanent staffers of both the individual legislators and more importantly the committee staffers do most of the heavy lifting.
As for the Lobbyists how would it be different than it is now. Then lobbyists will just have to spend a little more time knowing what size bribe to pass on to our legislators.
So yes count me in favor of term limits. Can't be any worse than what we got now.
